4 ms·
True. Access (services) vs. censorship, you want to avoid the monopolies from restricting new access providers, but also don't want access providers from censor
by IronWolve 9y ago
True. Access (services) vs. censorship, you want to avoid the monopolies from restricting new access providers, but also don't want access providers from censoring the access.
The right wants isp/telcos to be able to bundle and offer more speeds/services. Assuming it won't censor.
The left assumes isp/telcos will offer services/bundles (tiers) but will censor its services/bundles. (Like it did with netflix.)
As most places have a monopolistic type access (or worse, no access) thats the primary cause for concern. Nobody loves their cableco. If we had a plethora of choices for internet access, that would be the cure for censorship.
But we don't. We are stuck at fighting censorship due to lack of access.
- so33 9y agoIn Canada, the CRTC requires the big internet providers to resell their broadband to smaller ISPs. Even then it took a decade for big ISPs like Rogers to give up on onerous bandwidth caps (which would be about 100GB a month, and, usually, worse). Even with some competition and access, it can take a while for unfavorable conditions to resolve, partially because consumers don’t really care about things like censorship, lack of access, (or in my example) bandwidth limits. Markets are eventually consistent, but in terms of net neutrality I really don’t think we can afford to wait.
- stult 9y agoIt's not that customers don't care, but rather the transaction costs of switching (breaking contracts, dealing with CSRs, taking the time to shop around) slow the market response to competition.